It's too bad we can't experiment in two parallel universes. In the other one, it would have been fun to have Russ take a similar picture, only this time the truck that happened to come by would NOT have a logo on the back. Would forum critics have then encouraged him to clone in some company's logo to make a more powerful picture?

Too bad the interweb is so well, universal. If it weren't, then theoretically, one could post a logo-less picture on another, but similar forum, to see the reaction there. One could try but I doubt it would work, too easy to use google, find this thread and taint the opinion pool.

But, would Russ have felt inclined to make the shot if it hadn't been FedEx, specifically? Even Wells Fargo would have worked, as a romantic idea, had it been a stagecoach...

Anyone remember the sweetness of holding back and burning in with your own two hands? (I speak of printing.)

;-)

Rob C

I do. I also remember the chemicals, the plumbing, endless days of frustration in the darkroom and the little dollar signs that used to float off into space every time I pressed the shutter release on my camera.

I do. I also remember the chemicals, the plumbing, endless days of frustration in the darkroom and the little dollar signs that used to float off into space every time I pressed the shutter release on my camera.

It's too bad we can't experiment in two parallel universes. In the other one, it would have been fun to have Russ take a similar picture, only this time the truck that happened to come by would NOT have a logo on the back. Would forum critics have then encouraged him to clone in some company's logo to make a more powerful picture?

Too bad the interweb is so well, universal. If it weren't, then theoretically, one could post a logo-less picture on another, but similar forum, to see the reaction there. One could try but I doubt it would work, too easy to use google, find this thread and taint the opinion pool.

Robert, that is a very, very interesting angle and excellent question! I totally see your point.

If I am one of these "forum critics" you are referring to, I would NOT encourage any cloning in, simply because I have an aversion to major cloning in principle (unless we are talking about compositing or fine art creations). Another thing is that cloning out is simpler, just one decision to make (yes or no). Cloning in would require a whole universe of choices (i.e., which logo, which symbolism).

I guess it all boils down to Rob's point (would Russ felt compelled to press the shutter for a different-looking truck, consciously or subconsciously). Maybe yes, maybe no. So let's assume that Russ did take a picture of a truck with no logo. If we are in a parallel universe (and no google to go back and forth), there would be two pictures then. We would have at least two different reactions. Would one be right and the other wrong? I do not think so. Just different, even if ever so slightly.

Another scenario: Russ deliberately removes the logo for one "universe," without declaring it, and presents the logo version to another "universe." I think the reactions would be the same as above (i.e., just different, not right or wrong).

I think your line of reasoning then goes something like this: if so, then why are you so against cloning out the logo (i.e., if it is not right or wrong, just different)?

I think the answer is in the post-factum knowledge: in our case, we would KNOW the logo has been removed. That knowledge makes it "wrong" (if you belong to the school that considers it so).

Allow me two examples of the above, one gross and and the other not. The gross one (we still have a parallel universe scenario): a waiter brings you a soup from the kitchen. In both cases he spit into it. In one case he did it in the kitchen, and in the other case ("universe") he did it in front of you. Only in the second case you would consider it wrong, simply because you know he did it.

The other example: art forgeries. Prior to knowing, even experts would admire the forged piece of art, let alone unsuspected public, and would be ready to pay millions for it. Once proven fake, the price drops like a stone, although, visually, they continue to look identical.

I think you've finally convinced me that Russ's original photo is the right one, as it stands, with no removal or addition of logos or kangaroos.

Here's another thought experiment: Suppose Russ had happened to photograph a plain truck with no logo in that exact position. Do you think there is any chance that it would generate as much comment as the one he did post?

As Russ often says, what you see when you first photograph a scene is usually the right one (of course he applies that mostly to after-the-fact cropping, but I think it applies to seeing in general, much of the time.

Hi Slobodan, I went through your routine in Lightroom and got essentially what you got. Then I did roughly the same thing in ACR (same software) with some final touches in Photoshop. I think you really nailed it. The only problem with the picture is that it was shot with a six megapixel D100 through safety glass, so it doesn't have quite the pop I get with my D800 on a tripod.

Having watched this forum go from the simple to the quite complex, I got to wondering if what caused all the discussion over the logo or non-logo wasn't so much about the truck as much as it might have been about the perspective in which the scene was viewed...let me catch my breath.

So, while I did a different edit, both in focus and in color (that part just dinking with memories of that area as opposed to what russ shot, slobodan editied, etc.) that removes the grandeur of the sky which in my opinion helped to de-emphasize the trucks importance but not take away its necessity for being in the scene. I kept reading about this logo business when it did occur it may not have been about the logo as much as there was so much in the image to try to take in all at once, the truck WAS the focal point - it kept sanity to the eye's need for stabilization.

All this edit does is remove some of the grandeur and place the emphasis more on the truck, thus for me, removing the issue of logo and simply enjoying the scene.

Of course, I was able to do that in the original as well, so this is as much an exercise in futility as it is an exercise in learning from other's compositions.

I disagree, Rob. If you cannot learn from other's compositions, other than stroking your own ego, why belong to a forum at all? Every image I see on here I learn from. As to it applying to a particular genre, that is irrelevant. The truck could just as eaily be a duck and it wouldn't change the horizon line or where one placed it is the scene, the lighting, tone or color.

As to things coming from within..that's sort of a catch-all - duh-uh, but to be fair to the comment, isn't everything we do each time we either put a viewfinder to the eye, or tie our shoes have a moment of internal decision?

1. I disagree, Rob. If you cannot learn from other's compositions, other than stroking your own ego, why belong to a forum at all? Every image I see on here I learn from. As to it applying to a particular genre, that is irrelevant. The truck could just as eaily be a duck and it wouldn't change the horizon line or where one placed it is the scene, the lighting, tone or color.

2. As to things coming from within..that's sort of a catch-all - duh-uh, but to be fair to the comment, isn't everything we do each time we either put a viewfinder to the eye, or tie our shoes have a moment of internal decision?

1. Why would it stroke one's own ego? Belonging to a forum like this is multi-layered: I enjoy some of the writers; I enjoy many of the pictures. I don't seek to 'learn' anything from the process - I only seek the enjoyment of the moment.

2. Of course itís a catch-all; thatís the trouble with photography: it depends totally upon your own mind. If it doesnít, it probably signifies that you are still wanting the security of attempting to copy others.

Are you really going to tell me you've never learned anything from looking at other's work? I would find that highly amazing if not highly improbable. And if you still insist you don't, then the question becomes why?

Are you really going to tell me you've never learned anything from looking at other's work? I would find that highly amazing if not highly improbable. And if you still insist you don't, then the question becomes why?

Chris, I think we are getting embroiled in semantics.

I grew up digesting Life (available in India at the time), buying all the Popular Photography Annuals for several years; the late, great, lamented British magazine edited by Norman Hall called, simply, Photography where I had my first published girl; buying a huge collection of books by Peter Gowland, Peter Basch, Don Ornitz and Russ Meyer. As I moved along, I admired Bill King, Richard Avedon, Albert Watson. I bought years of subscription to Playboy, British Vogue (where, much later, I had several spreads of travel fashion shoots), Nova, Harper's Bazaar, French PHOTO, Pirelli Calendar Book (two editions) and God alone knows what else.

Yes, I saw a helluva lot of stuff, ranging from W. Eugen Smith and, via the fashion kings (and one or two great fashion camera divas) to the pinup kings, as I remarked above.

But did I learn anything?

In the sense that I believe you to mean it, no. That I simply had to be a photographer, yes, that I did confirm for myself. All that drifted off slightly from the original plan was that I had had an idea about travel books: photographing places and writing about them. Got into that mindset because I used to read a lot of such material as a child. That, and detective fiction. An attraction for the movies led me to write to David Lean who, to my surprise, answered and suggested the way into the business was moving to London and a job as a tea boy. I lived in Scotland. No chance.

As for Ďlearningí how to shoot things Ė I always seemed to know.

I had to go to photographic night school as part of the deal when I joined my first professional photo-unit as a trainee. I lasted a couple of terms and quit the course when I realised the employers didnít really give a damn if I went or not; the actual push came from within the night the guy Ďteachingí portraiture on a bloody wooden camera and using photofloods (I already had made up my own flash brolly unit with modelling light, which I used at home) informed me that were he to photograph in the maner of David Bailey (one of my then contemporary heroes), he would abandon photography. As I had no intention of using half-plate cameras, looking at women upside down and buying a neck brace for the sitters (or for myself?), I voted with my feet. I never went back. I now realise that there are certain people who do like looking at women upside down, but I donít figure Iím one. Maybe I missed a marketing niche?

So if you did refer to stylistics, techniques, I think not. I learned zilch from anyone. However, had I ever been an assistant with one of the stars of the fashion world, Iím sure I would have probably have had to become a clone. On the one hand, I regret never having had the opportunity but, at the same time, I didnít do too badly, so it ended okay if a smidgen too quickly for the absolute happiness of my bank account!

I know pefectly well that claiming to have always known how to make images might sound like another ego exploding; I can only confirm to you that thatís how it felt. Itís like falling in love: you just know when itís right, and if you donít, donít! The closest I can get to discovering Iíve learned anything is this: I hate vulgarity in pictures; I love to make women as beautiful as I can. None Iíve seen is utterly so, but some can help us create the myth together. Maybe my idols taught me that?

Then, Rob, I applaud you and your own sense of having it all come together and I am saying this with the utmost respect. I've always been far more the visual learner. It is not that I ever want to copy or even emulate, moreso that I wish to know why it worked so well for them and hasn't worked so well for me. I do learn, I do move progressively forward, and now that I am away from the "is it good enough," kids, I find my growth even more directed. Thanks for your honesty and for allowing me to push you without getting a nasty earful. It was very gracious of you.

Then, Rob, I applaud you and your own sense of having it all come together and I am saying this with the utmost respect. I've always been far more the visual learner. It is not that I ever want to copy or even emulate, moreso that I wish to know why it worked so well for them and hasn't worked so well for me. I do learn, I do move progressively forward, and now that I am away from the "is it good enough," kids, I find my growth even more directed. Thanks for your honesty and for allowing me to push you without getting a nasty earful. It was very gracious of you.

Hey, you asked an honest question - why reply any other way?

Other influences were heavy too, though: my mother used to take me to art galleries down in London even during WW2; in India I discoved the detective fiction genre and, more importantly, how the other half of the world lives/survives; back in Britain again I had the amazing good fortune to go to a school where I ran into a wonderful lady who taught English and, at the same time, I met my wife-to-be. That English teacher bought me a copy of the Complete Works of Shakespeare as a good luck present as I left school; each time I found myself in hospital after heart attacks, it was the one tome I asked my wife to bring me. As a teenager, I had an aunt living close by in Glasgow who bought Vogue and ĎBazaar and also owned a Rolleicord V which she lent me... yep, luck certainly does come into life!

Luck, or something I have come to think of as the unseen, but felt hand of oneís god, whatever that concept means to the individual.